Vehicles THEY Are Not Building
05-08-2008, 12:57 PM
#23
Registered User
Originally Posted by vader1,May 8 2008, 02:13 PM
If I were a billionaire I would launch a car company called "Commuter" and sell sporty 1500 pound cars that basically are rolling racing safety cages with about 150 hp and air conditioning. The cars would be small two seaters made to be fun, stylish, and efficient but just to be a family's second car for running to and from work.
No bells and whisltes to keep the cost down. Basically I have just described a slightly safer version of my brothers old CRX.
No bells and whisltes to keep the cost down. Basically I have just described a slightly safer version of my brothers old CRX.
05-08-2008, 12:59 PM
#24
Registered User
Jimbo, I think it was proven many years ago ('80's?) that front-drive is less expensive and weighs less, for an otherwise equivalent car. I don't know all the details but I can start with -- no driveshaft required and at least one fewer 90-degree turn in the power train.
05-08-2008, 01:22 PM
#25
Originally Posted by Penforhire,May 8 2008, 12:59 PM
Jimbo, I think it was proven many years ago ('80's?) that front-drive is less expensive and weighs less, for an otherwise equivalent car. I don't know all the details but I can start with -- no driveshaft required and at least one fewer 90-degree turn in the power train.
But less power? Never heard that.
05-08-2008, 02:23 PM
#26
Originally Posted by superjimbo,May 8 2008, 03:22 PM
I think you're right on the weight part, but 200 lbs. extra sounds like a bit much. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though...because I certainly could be But less power? Never heard that.
But less power? Never heard that.and for under 200hp, FWD is not a bad deal. it's better in the snow and safer for poor drivers due to the understeer.
but to me, FWD is not as much fun, and that's important to me. as said earlier, we're not the majority.
05-08-2008, 02:29 PM
#27
Originally Posted by vader1,May 8 2008, 01:13 PM
Toyota had a winner staring them in the face and they blew it. A 2300 pound RWD roadster in the MR2 spyder that would have done sixty in under 6 seconds and delivered near 40 on the highway IF they had included the celica GTS engine.
Instead it got the base model celica four which only made 140 hp. Sixty in over seven seconds, decent milage but not too much fun. They then turn around and sell the engine to lotus who then puts it into an Elise for $40k. Toyota could have delivered nearly the same car for low $20k prices that entusiast salivate for and would have the added bonus of high fuel economy.
Its my understanding they did not use the more powerful engine to "protect" sales of the pricier celica model, which was already dying a slow death.
Nice move Toyota.
If I were a billionaire I would launch a car company called "Commuter" and sell sporty 1500 pound cars that basically are rolling racing safety cages with about 150 hp and air conditioning. The cars would be small two seaters made to be fun, stylish, and efficient but just to be a family's second car for running to and from work.
No bells and whisltes to keep the cost down. Basically I have just described a slightly safer version of my brothers old CRX.
Instead it got the base model celica four which only made 140 hp. Sixty in over seven seconds, decent milage but not too much fun. They then turn around and sell the engine to lotus who then puts it into an Elise for $40k. Toyota could have delivered nearly the same car for low $20k prices that entusiast salivate for and would have the added bonus of high fuel economy.
Its my understanding they did not use the more powerful engine to "protect" sales of the pricier celica model, which was already dying a slow death.
Nice move Toyota.
If I were a billionaire I would launch a car company called "Commuter" and sell sporty 1500 pound cars that basically are rolling racing safety cages with about 150 hp and air conditioning. The cars would be small two seaters made to be fun, stylish, and efficient but just to be a family's second car for running to and from work.
No bells and whisltes to keep the cost down. Basically I have just described a slightly safer version of my brothers old CRX.
i REALLY had hoped the GTS engine MR2-S would come together. i'd have bought one new, looked into FI, and loved it. on a 2200lb RWD rear engine car, the stock ~180hp would have been a lot of fun, and 250-300whp would be an absolute blast to drive.
and your "Commuter" company sounds very similar to caterham/locost/etc. sounds great to me--make a DD model!
05-08-2008, 03:06 PM
#28
Consider that WAY back when in 1992 the Ford Probe and the Nissan 240SX were both similarly priced, similar size 2+2 hatches. About as close as you could come to otherwise-equivalent cars with one being fwd and the other rwd. And they weighed the SAME. RWD doesn't *have* to mean much if any additional weight.
More recently, I just looked up a 2003 G35 coupe vs. 2003 Acura CL. The FWD Acura weighs a little MORE than the rwd G35.
FWD is generally less expensive to build, but for a lot of us it's well worth the extra $$$ for rwd.
It's just too bad the 240SX was so underappreciated in the U.S. until AFTER it was gone. I'm a longtime Z-car guy (240Z that is) and I'd MUCH rather Nissan had brought back the 240SX than yet another overweight Z built on a luxury sedan platform.
More recently, I just looked up a 2003 G35 coupe vs. 2003 Acura CL. The FWD Acura weighs a little MORE than the rwd G35.
FWD is generally less expensive to build, but for a lot of us it's well worth the extra $$$ for rwd.
It's just too bad the 240SX was so underappreciated in the U.S. until AFTER it was gone. I'm a longtime Z-car guy (240Z that is) and I'd MUCH rather Nissan had brought back the 240SX than yet another overweight Z built on a luxury sedan platform.
05-08-2008, 03:50 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes dream about a RWD Civic SI...
But it doesn't make financial sense to manufactuers to make cheap, lightweight RWD cars because 99% of the buyers don't care for RWD and it costs more money to produce.
But it doesn't make financial sense to manufactuers to make cheap, lightweight RWD cars because 99% of the buyers don't care for RWD and it costs more money to produce.